Slashdot Mirror
IBM Responds To SCO: Business As Usual
Newsforge is running a statement from IBM on its decision not to bow to SCO's demand that they stop shipping AIX. In a statement this short, there's not much room for weaselly language, but the even-shorter version is this: "IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated."
Fuck off
SCO has made public statements and accusations about IBM's Unix license and about Linux in an apparent attempt to create fear uncertainty and doubt
I know it's silly but I always love when IBM uses the phrase "FUD" in corporate announcements since they know it means nothing to the mainstream press but it gets the Linux community all fired up. As petty and transparent as it is, IBM's press announcement can be roughly tranlated as "hey geeks, didja hear that? SCO called Captain Kirk a wimp, you feeling riled?" Well, riled we are...
The second paragraph: "IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated" is nothing but pissing on SCO's shoes. Beautiful, I can't suppress a beaming smile.
SCO fires back at IBM, Swears to go to court to collect Damages.
details at 11
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
forever and ever, in spiritu santcum. Amen.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Just got a mental picture of Big Blue with a big leapord-print hat laying down some pimp hand.
Mod point free since 2001
It's even crazier than we think. SCO isn't claiming that it (or AT&T, Novell, etc.) necessarilly wrote the code that IBM allegedly put into Linux. Rather, SCO says that it has exclusive rights to any code that IBM distributed with AIX, even if the code is entirely IBM's own word! Essentially, all code in any form of Unix belongs to SCO.
Accoding to an interview at Byte with Chris Sontag, SCO's VP, Linux is used by terrorists, and therefore IBM's Linux efforts are equivalent to selling arms to terrorists. Because of this, Sontag expects the US govt. to support his case against IBM and Linux as part of the war on terror. He also accuses Intel of using Linux as a way to flout US laws that ban weapons exports to North Korea.
Unfortunately, this is not a troll or an attempt at humor.
So when does SCO sue Sun?
And after that, is Apple next?
Can we get a SCO section for all of this? I filtered Caldera so I don't have to see all of these stories and here's one slipping through.
SCO's claims today that anybody running AIX is doing so without a license are themselves illegal - they constitute the tort of "injurious falsehood". Watch for IBM to make a counter-claim against SCO on this. Imagine how much IBM could claim to have lost if customers stop using and buying AIX because of this. That's the pecuniary damages. Then there's punitive damages. Idiots.
I was prepared for the harsh stance IBM was taking, but I wasn't prepared for the ascii middle finger and the "W3 0wnz0r j00 5c0 b10tch" on the bottom.
i'm picturing some kind of weekend, pay-per-view event, where IBM's lawyers square off against SCO's lawyers.
:)
the SCO lawyers will be puny, whiney, and the villians.
the IBM lawyers would all be built like Goldberg and carry lead pipes in. it would be a bloodbath, over in a few minutes, and save us all the legal crap.
let's face it, SCO is going to get bitch slapped hard by IBM at this point. they're trying to play hardball and up until now IBM has pretty much ignored them. however, like a fly that bites i have a feeling they're about to get swatted back into nothingness.
i guess courtTV needs their drama too.
The companies had engaged in brief but unfruitful discussions, SCO said last week.
The call, intercepted by an unnamed source, went like this:
Operator: Thank you for calling IBM. How may I direct your call?
SCO: Mr. Palmisano, please.
Operator: May I tell him who's calling?
SCO: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO
Operator: Oh, you again. *pause* He is still not taking your call. Would you like his voice mail?
SCO: *sigh* Sure.
[Flush][laughter]*click*
Speak softly, and carry a big stick.
Ever get hit by 50 gazillion patent infringment lawsuits and the one of the worlds biggest legal departments?
I stole this Sig
...IBM pisses REALLY hard on SCOs shoes....
Steve
hey geeks, didja hear that? SCO called Captain Kirk a wimp, you feeling riled?" Well, riled we are...
Screw you IBM, Picard rules!!
Scene: SCO's balls are tightly wrapped in electrical tape and SCO is lying on the floor...
SCO: Dddddon't hurt me!!
IBM: We ship your clothes, complete your financial transactions, know your insurance info... WE GUARD YOUR DATA WHILE YOU SLEEP, DO NOT FUCK WITH US!
Just you wait, he's just going to fade away in a few weeks. No one will know where he went until some fisherman finds his cement shoes in a net one day.
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
represents years of IBM innovation, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and many patents
uh oh....watch out SCO...they've opened their patent library...you're fscked
IBM is multinational by all means and any measure. International laws, i.e. laws in other countries than US may not be so overwhelmed by SCO's case inside the US as indicate in this Byte magazine article:
"It is also undeniable that the business climate in the U.S. lets someone take a far more aggressive attitude towards a competitor's customers than does the climate in Europe. SCO should have anticipated this, but Sontag seemed to be quizzical about what these European lawsuits are demanding, and how SCO should react to them. I got the impression that SCO's management was thinking entirely in terms of U.S. law, and have not thought through the international implications of their actions.
I find this amazing, especially considering that SCO's latest 10Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reveals that "revenue from international customers accounted for 48 percent of operating system platform revenue." "
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. i was coined by persons that felt that this was IBMs main tactic against competition.
eric
I think your idealism has made you forget that IBM and SCO are COMPANIES. That means money is involved. That also means greed is involved. Any schoolyard-bully characterization you give them is naivety at the extreme. Yes, we'd all like IBM to kick their (SCO's) ass. But, they are doing it for different reasons than an armchair-quarterback like yourself would like to think.
Translation:
IBM: <yawn> <glances over shoulder> Oh, SCO? You still there? Eh, fuck off, will you? <goes back to sleep>
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Let's say everything that the most cynical slashdotter suspects about this case is true. SCO has no case, this is an exit strategy, they're running around making a bunch of noise and making outrageous claims just to get attention and to try to scare IBM into doing what they say, and the instant that they are in the courtroom and their bluff is called, they are going to go down in countersuit flames in the most spectacular way possible.
If that happens:
What is stopping the people within SCO who started this case and subsequently destroyed SCO utterly from quietly selling all of their SCO stock sometime between now and the point SCO goes into court, thus making gobs of money in the span of time between SCO's stock price being temporarily knocked up by all the publicity around this case and SCO's stock price being knocked down once it becomes apparent SCO has nothing to back up their claims with?
What is stopping the people within SCO who started this case and subsequently destroyed SCO from walking out of SCO with incredibly lucrative golden parachutes, and possibly simply being rehired at another company in incredibly high-ranking, lucrative positions just because from the ignorant perspective of another corporation's board, hey, they were the ones who got SCO all that attention and tried to capitalize on that IP, even though it didn't work out?
I think specifically i'm thinking of Daryl McBride here. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion that, by design this case is designed to cause SCO to go SPLAT like a little tiny bug on IBM's windshield, obliterating it and its stock value utterly, while somehow letting the board members who initiated this entire fucking mess somehow wrangle a huge amount of money for themselves out of it and walk away scot-free and with a big impressive "CFO, SCO CORP" bulletpoint on their resume. What is stopping them from doing this? Anything? Anything at all, either legal or in the way corporations hire? Will the people responsible for causing this mess have consequences, or will the only ones to face the backlash after SCO implodes be the stockholders and employees?
Echo echo echo echo echo.
It seems like SCO is like that little kid who just wants to be annoying so they will get attention (or in otherwords cause IBM enough of a headache that IBM will just buy them out to shut them up)
Ave Molech Setting
Yeah, because companies don't normally say things like that. Look up the name on IBM's website. He's not the director, he's listed as someone in the Linux systems group. The press release is also not on IBM's website. I seriously doubt the validity of that post.
Fascinating, I always assumed "FUD" was invented to describe Microsoft tactics but now that you mention it, FUD is a much more accurate description of IBM's tactics in the late-eighties, early-nineties. To coin an old phrase "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Fortunately they have learned a lot from the early-90's crash and although I'm still sure their only motivation is still profit, you have to admit that when you think "FUD" in 2003 it doesn't bring IBM to mind anymore.
IBM is the last company in the world to do things for ideological reasons (okay, maybe second last.)
.. and I'm young!
Its probably a better risk/reward route to fight in court than just to stop shipping AIX. I mean, did anybody really think IBM would just snap its fingers and go, "Drat." like that?
Even if they are in the wrong, its probably a better business decision to fight it given that you cant just shut off a revenue stream like AIX (tho probably smaller than it used to be) at the request of a competitor.
Course they could be in a right as well, in which case taking it to court isn't exactly a display of courage rather than simply doing the logical thing.
I just never thought I'd live to see the day where IBM is getting support from nerds and the like
"Old man yells at systemd"
See SCO.
See SCO lie.
See stocks fly.
Fly stocks, fly!
See Gartner blow.
SCO stocks grow!
Grow stocks! Grow!
See Novell.
See Novell smack,
Smack SCO! Smack!
See IBM.
See IBM laugh.
SCO lawyers barf.
SCO stocks cut in half.
See SCO.
See SCO whine.
SCO says "It's mine!"
See IBM.
IBM puts foot down.
SCO execs start to drown.
Drown SCO, drown!
When this goes to trial I hope I get jury duty.
"Do you know what Unix is?"
No
"Do you know what Linux is?"
No
"Do you know who SCO is?"
No
"Do you know what IBM does?"
Ummmm they make typewriters?
"Ok, you are on."
Bwuahahahahah
But when did IBM become an ally?
There's too many good companies out there to have to resort to playing the "enemy of my enemy" game.
Well, if SCO hoped that IBM would settle or buy them out, they were clearly mistaken. Now that THAT plan has backfired, d u think they'll go after some one else next ? Maybe RedHat or SuSE ? It'll be interesting to see how they ( RedHat and others ) respond if that happens. After all, currently SCO is going after IBM only on the issue of trade secrets and their contract with IBM. Would they stoop to going after distributors of Linux if this doesn't work ?
The OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint suggests why IBM seems so confident.
(I'm sure it's been posted here before, but it's required reading)
CousinDave
It's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around.
I can remember the day Big Blue was the enemy and everyone was rooting for this geek kid out of Redmond...
My how things have changed since then.
Even the big bad 'client/server' model is back..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Point by point translation:
SCO, shut up or put up.
Just who do you think you are?
Fuck off.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
In the past two months, I've been reading over and over and over and over and over about this court case, without there anything getting something done or new added.
But in the same time, the crowd gets more enthousiastic, more violent in their responses and more sure of themselves.
It feels like the time between october last year and somewhere april this year when the TV stations and pulp-newspapers around the world had specials every day about the upcoming war, with new(tm) and improved(tm) reports about how this was going to be finished and how everything would turn out right at the end.
I'm going to ignore the SCO non-newsitems on slashdot until this case is over and read a proper review of it in one of the less sensational newsletters. Just my 2 cents.
bash$
"Bite my shiney blue ass, meatbags"
Man, this is going to be fun.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
four or more of the top execs at SCO are grads of BYU or Utah state... the company is run by Mormons and by extension, the Mormon church?
what's up with that?
Who is this guy doing this "press release" anyway? Why isn't there an official statement from the company?
And why did Timothy post this himself, linking to NewsForge (no less), instead of posting one of the hundreds of submissions he undoubtedly must've received, given the "hot topic"?
Sometimes I just wonder...
The licences between AT&T and IBM that are posted on SCO's site as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
In section 3.03 of exhibit B it clearly states that "AT&T" may revoke the licence for non-compliance. Moreover paragraph 4 of the cover page contains a standard "no alterations unless signed in writing" clause. I see nothing that allows AT&T to sell this termination right without IBM's approval. There are similar sectoin in Exhibit A, section 6.03 and paragraph 4 of the cover page.
Go for the eyes Blue! Go for the eyes!!!
This space for rent, inquire within.
i`ve never seen a real-life showdown like this over the internet. this is the kinda shit the non-geek ppl don`t know about, we're priviliged that we do!
:D
i can`t tell u all how much i want to grab some popcorn and watch lawyers fight it out by cutting eachother with papercuts from legal doucments, wooooo!
i`m supporting SCO... i like supporting under-dogs
WTF is a sig?
It's gonna be like a wet tshirt competition, but without the tshirts.
heh.
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
"IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It does not feel pity, remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Doesn't this say something to you? Maybe you should stop reading them if they don't interest you. But don't push your crap on everyone else.
Please, SCO story whiners, you are a minority. SCO stories are obviously extremely popular on Slashdot. The editors would be fools not to post them.
Clever signature text goes here.
I haven't seen this posted before. In a news.com article, IBM's alleged violations are listed:
Specifically, the transferred code includes the Journaled File System (JFS), extensions to make Linux work on a multiprocessor server employing the non-uniform memory access (NUMA) technique, Sontag said. In addition, he said read-copy update (RCU) for relieving some memory bottlenecks on multiprocessor servers, was transferred.
Well IBM was regarded as THE "Evil Empire" in the 80's if you was a Nerd, Geek, etc. At this present time it's Microsoft, who knows who it will be in 20 years time.
So the idea is that if you pay millions for commercial software, some company you didn't even know you were doing business with can shut you down. But if you use the free software that works better, is more compatible and looks the same, you're good to go. And this is a problem. OK, thought I had it. Somebody explain this again.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And not just that, Gerstner was a "traditional" CEO which is what they needed. Instead of responding to and engaging in the endless personality conflicts and insults that are constantly lobbed around Silicon Valley he basically just shrugged his shoulders and got down to the job of repairing the company and rescuing the stock price. His book is a good read, and the thing I find most interesting is that he didn't have some blinding insight into technology, he just shut his mouth, relied on common sense, and focused on what makes businesses work. It's amazing what a cool head can accomplish.
I know it's silly but I always love when IBM uses the phrase "FUD" in corporate announcements
h tm
The irony is delicious, especially when it was Gene Amdahl who coined the phrase "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to describe IBM's tactics towards his company after he quit IBM and founded Amdahl Computers (see one of the 1975 entries at http://www.academic.marist.edu/pennings/hyprhsty.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
IBM is going crush SCO. It's gonna take a few years but they have been marked for death. No licensing, no merger, no buyout. Remember, IBM got into a pissing contest with the Justice Dept. in the 70's. In case you need to be reminded the Justice Dept. is part of the U. S. Government who prints the money. The Justice Dept. does not have to show a profit, IBM does. IBM fought the Justice Dept. to a standstill for over 12 years and still showed a profit every year.
IBM most likely employs more people in their legal department than all of SCO. IBM is going to go into court with SCO and stall, bleeding them dry in the process. The legal fees will bankrupt SCO and IBM will not even break a sweat. Want proof? Go to your local University library and start reading the New York Times from the early 70's. 1971 or 1972. If I remember correctly IBM went into court to file a brief and the brief was 56 4-draw filling cabinets. It took the lawyers 2 years to read it. Ever seen mainframe documentation? Visualize that as legal paper work. SCO is dead they just don't know it yet.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
a word of advice, you don't go after the company that practically has the patent on ones and zeros.
sure, you might go after one division, and hope that just want to shut you up, but the core of the company? never.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"How about I give you the finger, and you go the hell away."
It sounds like a chalenge but what a great way to go.
If you are about to quit and you have access to some company account (petty cash will do) then go and spend it all on 5,000 cpies of OS/2 or something equally as stupid.
Imagine the fame for being the firsrt person to be fired for buying IBM.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
AIX is widely used in big businesses such as insurance companies, banks, etc. Linux and BSD are often used for middleware applications in these types of organisations, but they're nowhere near as scalable or mature enough to take over from AIX and other commercial UNIXs yet.
Interesting results from the Insider page:
2003-06-11
OLSON, MICHAEL P
Vice President
6,000
Automatic Sale at $8.59 - $8.66 per share.
(Proceeds of about $52,000)
2003-06-09
BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Financial Officer
7,000
Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $60,000)
2003-06-09
BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Financial Officer
7,000
Automatic Sale at $9.16 - $9.3 per share.
(Proceeds of about $65,000)
2003-06-06
HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President
5,000
Automatic Sale at $8.90 per share.
(Proceeds of $44,500)
OSX isn't unix, right? ;-)
Yeah, maybe Google or Yahoo or some internet company will become the next evil empire. Evil companies are always cute when they are still a young pup.
AOL already missed their shot as the big bad, since they are currently imploding.
I was thinking along the lines of a daily update, a la Slashback, detailing the big headlines of the past 24 hours. One story per day, unless something really breakthrough happens ("IBM Buys SCO", "Judge laughs SCO out of court", "Five key SCO executives found 'swimming with fishes'", etc).
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
IBM simply put a brick wall into SCOs way. Considering that with all the ruckus they made SCO has burned all bridges behind them and will never be able to get this resolved on friendly terms there's no way SCO can go: if they stall the shareholders will finally loose confidence and SCO stock will drop through the floor to it's real value, and if they go to court IBM has them where it wants them and SCOs bubble will burst, maybe they can drag along the case a little longer by fighting in court, but then IBM might also countersue for damaged reputation, reduced sales because of FUD etc.
IBM is calling on SCOs bluff, so SCO either has to fold or show their weak hand and lose.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Imagine the fame for being the first person to be fired for buying IBM.
Old news. fortune(1) has the following quote from the WSJ in 1989.
Although it is still a truism in industry that "no one was ever fired for
buying IBM," Bill O'Neil, the chief technology officer at Drexel Burnham
Lambert, says he knows for a fact that someone has been fired for just that
reason. He knows it because he fired the guy.
"He made a bad decision, and what it came down to was, 'Well, I
bought it because I figured it was safe to buy IBM,'" Mr. O'Neil says.
"I said, 'No. Wrong. Game over. Next contestant, please.'"
-- The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1989
The way I see this, this can only help Linux in the long run. If IBM wins, and it seems likely it will, we could start to see large chunks of AIX/UNIX code released under the GPL. If the UNIX code is declared generic, inhibitions to release unix-like code under the GPL will decrease substantially. On the other hand, if all hell breaks loose and IBM looses the rights to distribute AIX the results will be even more immediate. The "disputed" code will be replaced under the GPL by our programmers, and life will go on. *Most importantly* SCO cannot win this, because winning places a monsterous shadow of FUD over UNIX. Companies will think twice about investing in UNIX if they have to fear the fickle whims of SCO. This will be very interesting.
You want fries with that?
The second paragraph: "IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated" is nothing but pissing on SCO's shoes. Beautiful, I can't suppress a beaming smile.
If I were IBM I wouldn't be smiling... IBM's license agreement with SCO (which SCO acquired from AT&T), says "If LICENSEE fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under this Agreement, AT&T may, upon its election and in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two (2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied; upon such termination LICENSEE shall immediately discontinue use of and return or destroy all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this agreement."
IANAL, but that seems pretty straightforward to me...
Now, Linux wasn't derived from any AT&T source code; it was written from scratch, under the GPL, much as System V Unix wasn't derived from Linux. Therefore, any System V Unix code that was contributed to Linux was improperly contributed, and should be removed as well! Right?
I have a feeling that if SCO tries to use this particular line of reasoning as stated in that Byte article, they'll get their asses handed to them. Or at least they should...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
IBM will continue to ship, support and develop AIX which represents years of IBM innovation, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and many patents. As always, IBM will stand behind our products and our customers.
# # #
Trink Guarino
Director, IBM Media Relations
PS. Nyah Nyah Nyah
I don't want to rain on your parade but you do know that is IBM PR at work. There's almost certainly a team of IBM lawyers meeting with SCO lawyers to talk a way out of this mess 24hrs a day.
I mean, c'mon people! Wake up and smell the PR action going on here.
This isn't "IBM, defender of the free". This is "IBM, that's mine, that's mine, that's yours and now it's mine".
If you were IBM would you come out with press release saying "Oh shit, we're fucked. Whatawegonna dooooooo". Um, no.
That about covers it.
Whatever you do / / /
Don't fouque with Big Blue
Or Big Blue
Will annihilate you.
This is like defending the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany: You just fall back a little, and fall back a little more, and let the opponent thrash around, kicking and screaming, burning energy and money, wasting men and machines, building up a supply line that he can't defend. SCO has to stay in the headlines, has to keep pushing deeper and deeper so the press stays interested, or else people will catch on to the fact that the don't have the resources to take Moscow, let alone Sibiria, before winter comes.
And winter is on its way. Once the stock market realizes that this is going to be long, drawn out battle, they will lose interest in SCO, and the stock price will start to fall again -- we saw the first frost on Monday. Their stock price is like the temperature in Kelvin, likely to fall towards a very absolute zero if they don't keep moving. SCO is not equipped to fight unter six feet of financial snow, while IBM has resources to burn. This is where the comparison breaks down: IBM is not a starving Communist dictatorship, but rather has the industrial capacity of the U.S. to draw upon.
So time is on IBM's side, while SCO is running out of ways to escalate this fight. And this is what is so beautiful about the press release: The way it makes clear that there will be no quick, furious battle, just a steady stream of legal artillery raining down on SCO while IBM slowly marches away, giving ground, gaining time. The actual court case will trap SCO like ice, and the the snow will start falling, and SCO will start starving.
And all this time, safe behind the Urals, the penguins will be breeding...
Actually it was coined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to start his own computer company. "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD
That hinges on AT&T's successors -- we presume SCO although that's been called into question too -- complied with their part of the license, namely "by not less than two (2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying such breach". Yeah, SCO gave IBM "100 days" notice of something, but of what, exactly?
Even if IBM flagrantly violated the SCO-IBM contract to develop Monteray (and I'm not saying they did), that is not the contract by which SysV was licensed to IBM. Unless SCO can point to something in the original IBM-AT&T contract that IBM violated (and which IBM hasn't since fixed), SCO may as well go piss up a rope.
-- Alastair
thus spoke the evil proctologist said: the enema of my enemy is my friend....
The SCO Group of Lindon, Utah (not to be confused with the cutting edge SCO design firm of Santa Cruz that had made contributions to science) is simply trying to use the power of patents to destroy in its quest for riches.
There are many who consider the power to destroy as a greater power than the power to create.
Even though IBM may not have a perfect past, they do have a long history of creating things, and that history deserves a little bit of admiration. IBM has made a good steady stream of contributions to science along the path of it quest for world dominance. So, yeah, I will cheer big blue as I personally value those who create more than those that simply brandish threats and demand payments.
If you look at page 2 of this document from SCO's site -- in a letter TO IBM, it quite clearly states: ... are owned by you"
"We agree that modifications and derivative works
The only qualification is that the actual lines of code from ATT's source code in the derivative works still belong to ATT.
Elsewhere, in the documents, I found a paragraph that implies that if IBM has someone look at the original source code, write new code, the new code belongs to IBM. This seems to completely destroy any argument that the "methods, etc" belong to SCO.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It amuses me to no end that people consider buying SCO to be a valid option to be brought up again and again. There is no point. It would be of benefit to SCO shareholders, and to reward them for putting these idiots in place is not on IBM's agenda.
If IBM were to buy anybody, they might buy Novell, since Novell owns the patent. Relatively speaking, that'd be an end run around SCO. In fact, if you really wanted to have fun as IBM, you'd buy the patent, and sell it to FSF for $1, and have the patented code GPL'ed.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
The court also finds that IBM is SCO's "daddy", and instructs SCO's legal counsel and executive management to "say it, biatch".
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Java is cross platform. It's not Linux-specific.
OpenOffice? Don't you mean StarOffice? Yeah, you know... the one Sun develops that you need to pay to use?
Sun is looked down upon by Linux zealots because they keep changing their story as to whether or not they're pro or anti open source.
It's funny, because people keep trying to make it look like slashdotters/Linux users or whatever have some fucked up political agenda and as such therefore must hate Microsoft/Intel/IBM no matter what they do. In fact, some would say that the only thing slashdotters enjoy doing more than said bashing is bashing the bashers. So in turn, here I am to bash you, the basher bashing the bashers.
I'm going to put this in plain and simple terms.
SCO is doing something stupid.
IBM is calling them on their stupidity.
And you expect us to all sit around and go "But wait, IBM = big company = bad... Uh... GO SCO!" or something like that? Right.
Maybe, just _MAYBE_ slashdotters base their opinions not so much on who they think is the popular choice but rather on what makes the most sense... because through this whole debacle, there is extremely little that doesn't make you want to cheer on IBM in this matter, regardless of your opinion towards them in others.
Karma: Non-Heinous
IBM today announced the completion of the world's fastest legal team: Blue Thunder which was jointly developed by the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Harvard University and IBM. Blue Thunder can perform 3.9 trillion lawsuits per second (15,000 times faster than the average IP law firm) and has over 2.6 trillion bytes of high-tech patents to work with (80,000 times more than the average Wall Street tort artist). It would take a lawyer using a small office of secretaries 63,000 years to perform as many legal actions as this team can perform in a single second.
Ahead of all the others, SCO's biggest mistake was that they accused IBM of ignoring its confidentiality obligations. IBM either partners with or manages systems for every major company on Earth. (Maybe a few other planets, too, for all I know.) IBM Global Services' main stock in trade is its trustworthiness in keeping secrets. A measly $billion$ isn't even in the noise compared to the value of IBM's reputation in this matter, so IBM simply can not afford for SCO to have even a shred of credibility when the dust settles.
This sucker is going to a finish, and I somehow doubt that IBM will be the one finished.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The Revenge Of the Coders. Why doesn't everyone who contributed to the Linux kernel slap a TRO on SCO? I'll do the paperwork and the filing for free....
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
... against corporate crime, executives are getting caught, exposed and tossed in jail. I'm suprised you didn't know that. It's been in all of the papers.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I'd imagine IBM don't particularly like companies trying to, when stripped of the legal niceties, basically extort money out of them. Crushing SCO sends a message to anyone else who might try it that IBM isn't going to roll over easy.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Somebody earned their paycheck. ;-)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Look at the statement and in the second para IBM says clearly that it is defending it's AIX customers. The IBM licence for UNIX that as reflected in AIX is probably as rock solid as they suggest ie. irrevocable, never ending and all that.
They do not state that they will defend Linux even if it is implied.
Not to imply that SCO has any validity to their claim but to tout IBM as a hero for what they do normally is silly. That is IBM's response to just about anything...SCREW YOU, we are bigger than you and have more lawyers and money.
That is what got them in trouble with the feds before, it is what almost led them down the tubes following the MicroChannnel/PS2 fiasco. Given enough tries even doing nothing will be the right answer some of the times.
On a side note our IBM rep assured us that we are covered, we dealt with IBM in good faith and with documentation that they were legally able contract for the SW at the time, even if the unthinkable happens and IBM loses, business's would at that point have to start doing somthing new, but until then all is good.
SCO will go bankrupt from the legal fees with this case alone. Their death is even more certain if you take into account potential legal fees from fighting an IBM countersuit, a possible Novell lawsuit over the Unix copyrights or patents, multiple (including international) copyright infringement suits over their illegally distributing non-GPL code in the Linux kernel source, multiple defamation or trade libel lawsuits for their damaging, inflammatory comments made in the press recently, and possible shareholder lawsuits over irresponsible and false comments made with the purpose of pumping up their stock.
I would be quite hesitant to say that this is win/win... (not that they will) But if SCO did manage to win this case it would severely hamper Linux as a platform. Sure, the Kernel devs will re-write the offending code, but that does not mean that Linus/RedHat/Suse et al will be free from legal challenges...
/. I once told my boss (the guy who buys all the IIS and NT machines in the office) that I ran OSX... he was suprised to hear that IBM had upgraded OS/2 to version 10!... If SCO wins, then a good chunk of Linux momentum will be lost...
More importantly were SCO to win would be the shadow over Linux that would be cast... sure, SCO would effectively kill their UNIX sales, but really they are peanuts... I think SCO is out to become a company that just exists to collect royalties.
Now, I know what you might be thinking, Linux is NOT Unix... I too know what the GNU in GNU/Linux stands for... but consider that the business types who write the cheques are not necessarily people who will read
_CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
Umm, didn't Boies once work as IBM's defense atty in the federal antitrust case against IBM back in the 70's - 80's?
Now he's representing IBM's opponent? Doesn't that constitute an "Attorney Conflict Of Interest"? If he loses for SCO, then SCO can sue Boies for attorney malpractice.
Attorneys have been disbarred for failure to excuse themselves from counsel in COI cases.
You know what I'm talking about...
You know you do..
You're getting out of your car with your briefcase and your bag of groceries and you have this eerie feeling you're forgetting something important. You stand up and reach for the door and give it a shove. As the door careens toward closure, that little switch in your brain flips and that little voice starts screaming "Take it back! Take it back! Your keys are in there!!!" In an instant, your body wretches trying to catch the car door closing but to no avail. That little voice in your head then says "Awww shit, you really fucked up now, and you're beyond the point of no return."
This is what SCO has just done. They have started the final nail in their coffin in their juvenile, if not heroic, last stand. Their captain has just delivered the message to the crew that this cause is more important than their corporate lives, and they will fight to the death even though the odds are indeed impossible.
In other news, monster.com stock is up 40% today on a wave of new resumes, mostly for UNIX developers.
Now, if this turns out to be a "David and Goliath" situation and they get one of these "root for the underdog" bleeding heart liberal judges, we may have an interesting time yet. These do-gooders who think that parity is more important than justice and truth are easily conned by the "crying little guy" who is actually the devil incarnate.
Most of use depend on *nix; Windows have a few servers here and there, but ... and think about the possibility ... if SCO won this case in, say, 2007, and all UNIX derivatives were invalid, what would we be left with?
MS Windows, which by then would have Palladium. If SCO get their way, even *BSD will be dead; in the worst-case scenario, the US will be depending on European laws making something (Linux, *BSD, whatever) legal to be distributed (hmm, maybe under license?) to the USA
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
IBM is going crush SCO. It's gonna take a few years but they have been marked for death. No licensing, no merger, no buyout. Remember, IBM got into a pissing contest with the Justice Dept. in the 70's. In case you need to be reminded the Justice Dept. is part of the U. S. Government who prints the money. The Justice Dept. does not have to show a profit, IBM does. IBM fought the Justice Dept. to a standstill for over 12 years and still showed a profit every year.
IBM most likely employs more people in their legal department than all of SCO. IBM is going to go into court with SCO and stall, bleeding them dry in the process. The legal fees will bankrupt SCO and IBM will not even break a sweat.
You do realize that this is precisely what is so wrong with our legal system and how corporations abuse it, right? It just happens to be working in our favor at the moment, but what happens why Goliath goes after the little guy and the little guy is right?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
What you're saying on the surface doesn't match my experience when dealing with contracts and law.
Rights have to be specifically assignable, or else they are not. That is to protect exactly against this sort of thing. Typically, legal language would be something like "AT&T or their assignees".
And SCO has yet to clearly specify (as opposed to vague generalities) what was disclosed(*), let alone prove that IBM made such disclosures.
Even if they do manage to prove IBM did that (unlikely, given IBM's usual extreme care in managing IP rights), IBM can argue the point that the clause was rendered moot because the "software products" had previously been disclosed by AT&T and others (see the USL vs BSDI suit, for example), including AT&T's successors Novell and SCO.
Sure, if, if SCO can prove that things actually happened the way they said, and that the license means what they think, and that the point was not rendered moot by previous actions, then IBM is in trouble. I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.
(*) The vague generalities mentioned have included JFS (Journaling File System), the Linux version of which was ported from OS/2; SMP, which in large part was developed (in Linux) by Alan Cox on hardware donated by Caldera for the purpose, and NUMA, orginally an SGI development. None of these things were in the SysV code that IBM licensed. For SCO to claim that these are non-disclosable "software products" for the purpose of the license, they'd also have to prove that their interpretation of the "derivative work" ownership reversion applies to such technologies that were added to UNIX/AIX by IBM rather than derived from it. Good fscking luck.
-- Alastair
The point is, however, that this may not be the proper license. If this license doesn't allow sub-licensing, then it is not the license which IBM utilizes for AIX. And, regardless, SCO is utterly full of shit when they claim that AIX customers may be held liable - that's just pure and utter crap -- the customers have a license derived directly from SCO. SCO would have to suspend it from each and every one of those customers, individually, and would have to give some proof of those individual customers violating the terms of the license. Frankly, SCO is screaming for a lawsuit on illegal restraint of trade here... probably because if they get sued by IBM or by one of IBM's customers then they're in a much better legal position as the defendant.
Beyond that, it's still not clear that IBM even violated this license... or rather, that SCO didn't violate it in claiming that IBM violated it. Depends on what information SCO submitted, in writing, to IBM. If they didn't detail the exact violation -- and their court briefing sure as hell isn't adequate -- then they're in violation of the license and cannot suspend IBM's license over this. It's exactly this kind of thing that got UnixWare in trouble with UC and BSD. If you don't play by the rules in IP, you risk losing the IP completely - it's the trade off for the monopoly power granted by copyright, patent, et. al. (and, yes, I know this is allegedly trade secret stuff, but SCO's gonna have one hell of a hard time making that stick against IBM -- I mean, come on... IBM was doing "enterprise features" before Unix even existed).
Your synopsis of the case indicates you have paid no attention already. Had you been reading SCO preess releases, you might have been alternately amused and outraged. Did you send in your "one time only" $99 per CPU Linux fee? Do you really think they own all of Unix? Their have backed their ludicrous claims with nothing but slander and insult and so far the only people taking them seriously are M$ and an English major. If you would, kindly sit at that other table in the cafeteria with all the PHB for the durration and quit posting useless drivel.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hmm. I know Novell gave SCO the right to license out Unix bits, but did they give up the right to issue licenses themselves? My question is: Could IBM nip over to Novell, pay them 20 bucks and get a brand spanking new Unix license?
---
dude, where were you during the September that never ended? Usenet used to be a great place for info on the internet.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
no, the open group will still own the name. all ibm will get is the sysv src code from which most commercial unicies are derived from. (i believe)
No, SCO isn't showing anyone the code because there is no code.
3.IBM, red hat et al can then say "yes we were using your code but we stopped as soon as we found out about it" which means that SCO cant do things like filing an injunction that says "if you use our code, you have to pay us mega $$$"
SCO can't do that anyway - read a little bit about the doctrine of laches.
SCO has been harping on about this for two months. If they went to a judge now and said "we want a TRO to stop these people from using our code", the judge would say "since you didn't think it was important enough to ask them, or to do this when you found out about it, you must therefore value any infringing code at $0. And since you have declared that the code has no value, I'm not gonna stop someone else from distributing it."
Seriously. By not telling anyone where it is, SCO has declared that the monetary value of any of "their" code in Linux is $0.
Achille Talon
Hop!
I agree. Wish I had mod points.
I also agree. SCO is wrong and so is IBM but that does not change that the fact that IBM has been down this path before and will use what ever stick they can get their hands on. Right, wrong, or indifferent, today in America the guy who has the most money to spend on lawyers wins. You don't like this? Fine! What are YOU gonna do about it? Talk is cheap.
SCO is wrong on 3 counts. 1) this bullshit that they own all the IP of Unix and all subsequent Unix like OS. 2) that suing people is a legitimate business model and 3) the thing that really pisses me off. That they can threaten IBM, Apple, the Linux, FreeBSD and Open Source community and get away with it with out retribution. In my view stupidity should be painful and stupidity on this scale should cause SCO and everyone associated with them should be extinct. All I have to do is wait a couple of years and they will be.
This does not change the fact that the patent and legal system in this country is profoundly fucked. But one pile of shit at a time.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
All I can is say is that SCO must have a terminal brain fart. I know that Texas Instruments reversed their sagging fortunes by enforcing patents and suing companies. I guess that SCO thinks they can do that too.
I had to administer a SCO box at a former employer, and all I can say is that it was the least friendly UNIXes I've ever dealt with. I say goodbye to SCO and good riddance.
In defense of SCO, we'd all be cheering them on if they were suing Microsoft, and I'd bet we'd try to find some justification for it and cheer them on. Note to SCO--If you survive, go after Microsoft! Oh wait! You are probably their patsy. Er that's Microsoft Patsyâ. Never mind.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Because:
void sue(infidel){
throw LegalTarPit();
}
IBM: What does YOUR code looks like?
SCO: What?
IBM, pointing his gun: Say "what" again. SAY "WHAT" AGAIN! I dare you, I double dare you, motherf***er! Say "what" one more goddamn time!
SCO: You s-s-stoleee my source code...
IBM: Go on.
SCO: I w-w-want YOUR m-m-money...
IBM: Do I look like a bitch?
SCO: What?
[IBM shoots SCO in the shoulder]
IBM: DO I LOOK LIKE A BItCH!?
SCO: NO!
IBM: Then why you trying to f*** ME like a bitch, SCO?
SCO: I didn't!
IBM: Yes you did. Yes you did, SCO. You tried to f*** ME. And I don't like to be f***ed by anybody, except by Micro$oft.
I guess that helps to explain what happened to Drexel-Burnham-Lambert. Be seen as making a wrong decision and you're out the door. I'll bet they still can't comprehend the death of company loyalty, or why eventually the sleeze oozed to the top of their organization.
/. poster.)
It would be a lot funnier if this attitude didn't represent the viewpoint of so many incompetant managers out there. 'Next contestant' my ass: have you ever wondered why the competant people went to work for someone else, dipshit? ('Dipshit' is Mr. O'Neil, not the
The little guy fills out the necessary paperwork to proceed in forma pauperis?
:)
Check out the Supreme Court of the US's order lists sometimes.
Look for "Motion for petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis is granted".
That means "I don't have to pay the legal fees cause I can't afford it".
If the AC is out of a job, it's likely to be at least in part the fault of a greedy coorporation or two that hogged resources and fought destructively and dirty instead of co-operatively and clean. Greedy corporations (like SCO at present) are almost always driven by one or a few greedy individuals. They should not be able to use any corporation as a moral facade that they can hide behind.
Contrast insert-random-company-here with (say) Scaled Composites. Burt Rutan may well make more megabucks as a consequence of his venture, but he doesn't need to and he knows it. If I had anything to bet you, it would be down on this premise: Rutan is doing it primarily for the challenge and to see if he can, not in the hope of earning squillions. Notice that even his domain has a wordplay in it: SCALED.COMposites. Anything that will encourage fair, competent and happy players like him and discourage the greedy has to be a good thing!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO have amended their complaint against IBM: - They now want $3bn
- Blames Linus for letting proprietary stuff into Linux
- Complains Open Source "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research" in Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya
- Says IBM copied RCU
- Sequent added to the complaint
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1017965.html
Oh! How very delicious, indeed!
When I was a newbie Unix Sysadmin in the mid-eighties, it was at a Very Large University that had been given an IBM 3090 "supercomputer" (while the administration, whose salaries were paid for by IBM Corp, purchased a second for full price , at a time when typical academic discounts from Sun and SGI were up around 50%). Well, there were a number of IBM employees "advising" University IT services full-time with offices on campus . They were there to squash any and all use of non-IBM gear, they were.
IBM didn't really have a Unix offering at that time, and the faculty were just clamoring for Unix mini's -- Suns, SGIs, DEC VAXen running BSD 4.2/4.3, Apollos, HPs -- even PC's running XENIX. The faculty found it was more beneficial to their research projects to buy a smaller computer but have it dedicated to the project, than to have to buy time on the University supercomputer. For one thing, they'd have the hardware for as long as it lasted, and have, well, root access. And they could hire monkeys like me for peanuts to keep them running -- on the network!
Well, my installing BSD on VAXen and keeping a network of Suns and SGIs running on the network made me none too popular with the Brainwashed-By-Big-Blue Brigade-- much as my putting cygwin on Windows boxes and occasionally whiping Windows altogether with a nice Linux install makes me none too popular with the MSCE's that infest corporate IT department these days.But in academics, as well as in business, it's the Golden Rule: the ones with the Gold make the Rules. By bringing in research grants, the faculty, who wanted unix boxes, were making the rules. Also, since much of the money was coming in from DARPA and Friends, who all championed BSD (having funded its development) we had the funding agencies to refer to as well. But the B-B-B-B Brigade would continually try to sell us time on the 3090 -- and we would be, like "get your eyeballs off of my stack, jack!"
I recall numerous acrimonious meetings with the BBBBB where they would point to this wonderful "gift" of the 3090 as obligating us to use it -- at which point we would counter with "Well, if it was running UNIX, we'd consider it..." They'd come up with their FUD to the tune of "Well, IBM is working on Unix versions..." (referring to AIX which was vaporware at that stage, and a BSD RISC machine that unfortunately never got off the ground).
But BOOM! We'd hit them with "Why not just install UTS on the 3090?"
Oh! The dirty looks we'd get for that one! Talk about hitting a raw nerve!
But now, IBM is our new best friend. The FUD Fighters and Champions of AIX and Linux.
It is way beyond ironic. It is so deeply satisfying!
Now IBM is famous for its interdepartmental rivalries. I do sometimes wonder if our little blows against the empire at that stage had anything to do with the ultimate rise of the groups, internal to IBM, that were behind the development of AIX.
The truly ironic thing, though, is that the technical sophistication and security features of the PPC chipset and OS/400 systems architecture are really starting to impress me as being quite a bit better than what either linux or unix on any hardware platform ever had to offer. *nix is just starting to get serious database-tuned journaling file systems, stable security implemented, VM's (or LPARs) to your heart's content, and use of an instruction set that can directly manipulate tables of 64-bit hash keys (on the PPC anyway). The AS/400 has had these things for a looooong time. So...maybe we were wrong back in the 80's, and IBM had it right the first time.
Truly ironic.
Felt like saying this close to the top of the article... From here:
How did Microsoft's agreement to pay you for Unix rights happen?
Darl: In the Microsoft case, they saw an opportunity. We originally approached them and said we're on a new licensing path; we have this intellectual property that we've started approaching vendors about. IBM is one we approached; Microsoft was another. We had about four big vendors in the last quarter that we talked with. With two of them, we signed deals. The other we're still talking with, and IBM we reached an impasse.
To me it feels like they are still talking with HP, and Sun decided to pay up to take a stab at linux (in the back, I might as well say). Or is there any other interpretation? Was anyone surprised at how quick Sun was to advertise that they are in the clear?
Boy, these Sun people don't seem like such friends of ours after all.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Ok, I did a little digging, since everyone has been proclaiming how huge IBM was and how puny SCO was. My conclusion is that they are right. Here is what I found:
M &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannualO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm le ys/aug01.cfm
SCO
Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance)
Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*)
IBM
Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees:
315,889 (Source: Multex)
Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com)
Sources:
IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IB
SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SC
IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002
IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 - http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surv
*SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first. Any additional information that anyone has would be helpful.
A CD from iTunes: $10 A Song from iTunes: $0.99 Not paying a cent to Microsoft: Priceless
This does indeed to be what SCO wants to argue - that all these things that licensees have added to their own unix derivatives are somehow now their property. I think (and I hope) that when this finally gets in front of a judge they'll be disabused of that notion very quickly. This isn't just Linux and AIX they're talking about, it's Sun and HP and SGI and everyone else that's ever added features to a SysV derivative (which is everybody that's ever sold a unix, essentially - SysV isn't exactly a useful system without all the stuff the various vendors have coded themselves.)
I know it sounds like a bad joke, but it really does sound like 'all your IP is belong to us' is what SCO is asserting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
More than 600 postings on this thread, and (at the top level at least) nobody's mentioned indemnification yet...
SCO thought they'd be smart today, pull the plug on IBM and the AIX installed base and let all those multi-billions of dollars of customers force IBM to it's knees. Oh please... A standard part of the (megabuck) license agreement that the AIX licensees sign is that IBM will indemnify them against patent and copyright infringement committed by IBM in constructing the product. IP infringements do happen, intentional or not, and it's only reasonable for a licensee to expect the licensor to stand behind their product. That's indemnification - it frees the person who's purchased the license from having to defend against an embedded IP infraction. In addition to IBM indemnifying their own code, they would normally ask indemnification against infringements by the licensee if they make mods.
Now, if you're buying software from me, I can promise indemnification and buy and insurance policy. But you won't buy from me, because the IBM salesman also paid you a call, and explained that his ability to stand behind his product legally is unmatched by anyone else, probably in the world. More lawyers, more patents, more money and more lethal force than anybody else is packing.
I've mentioned it in earlier postings, and it's popped up in this thread too. Little gnats often pop up and try to suck some blood from IBM. They are crushed quietly and behind the curtain by IBM's IP portfolio and legal muscle. Usually the customers don't even hear about the problem, which is the way they like it. Nothing probably makes the IBM contract management group more angry than having a SCO make a ruckus in public and cause them to have to call their gazillion licensee to tell them that there's no problem.
The only question on how this will turn out is whether IBM will take SCO out for a ride in their limo before fitting them with concrete boots or whether they get it in broad daylight at the toll booth.
Which leads to the worst job in the world (yes, even worse than yours). I remember reading an article that mentioned that only 3 SCO employees are focused on the lawsuit (yes, many many more non-employees), while the other couple of hundred continue on their path of innovation, the Caldera way.
I think everybody realizes that this is going to take a while. The guy you *don't* want to be is the VP of Sales as SCO. Now, you might have been jazzed that your company was going to squeak, IBM would buy it to make the problem go away, and you'd go home with your $20 million bucks. Only it didn't work that way. Not only is IBM not going to buy you a mansion, they're not going to even acknowledge your squeaking. You might have felt a buzz of pride thinking that IBM would have to rename AIX to "SCO AIX". Now, IBM has about 3000 people talking to every client in the world telling them how their enormous company is going to crush your clueless company.
Then the SCO CEO comes into your office, says "This isn't as easy as I thought it was going to be" and tell you that it will be really important that you maintain SCO's revenue stream since it will be too damn obvious if Microsoft gives SCO anymore money.
When SCO makes a sales call today, do you think anybody *doesn't* laugh at them? That's a job that sucks.
Oh well, I guess you can hope that Microsoft buys you before the end of the quarter. In two weeks...
David Fung
Two points...
IBM must have a copy of the "offending" code as identified by SCO? In which case IBMs silence means they believe they have a killer defense. Any other situation IBM would be negotiating a settlement.
SCO motives have changed over the months. At first it was just a trivial copyright problems with some SCO libraries. They probably had a case then. Since expensive laywers have become involved everything changed. SCO is now attempting to hijack all Unix. It's obvious that they are on the road to trying to use legal tactics to invalidate ALL existing Unix licensing in the hope that ALL Unix rights and code will revert to SCO. If they win against IBM, SUN, HP SGI and many others will be next.
Everything you said was true, but irrelevant. If IBM is doing the right thing, then we should cheer them, right? Isn't that what we're doing?
When IBM does the wrong thing again, we'll take sides with their adversary, whoever it may be (even if it's Microsoft, and MS is actually doing the right thing). While we have a tendency to support the little guys, fact is, we don't support the little guys. We support what we, each as individuals, think is right, from whatever direction it comes.
To put it clearer, The Enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Like what I said? You might like my music
My [large, well known hardware vendor] rep is also SCO's representative. His company sells Linux server solutions, BTW. Anyway, he told me even as a vendor he didn't want to do business with SCO. Talk about a tech industry pariah...when the vendors hate your guts...
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
FUD is a much more accurate description of IBM's tactics in the late-eighties, early-nineties.
To my recollection, it goes back at leas to the late seventies, to the time of "IBM and the Seven Dwarves", when the Seven Dwarves (Honeywell, Univac etc) complained that it was IBM's main selling tactic.
It is an obvious tactic to use when you are overwhelmingly the largest plauyte in the field. IBM then, Microsoft now. An the fact is that there is some truth in it. You know that you will never be totally lost if you fall back into Microsoft's choking embrace. Maybe you could do better by hunting around, but why bother? Many peole prefer mediocrity to risk, even if the payoff may be high.
OTOH, I think it is a very bad signe for the long term propagator of FUD. IBM had a massive fall after years of FUD, and only recovered when it dropped that attitude completely and started competing on its merits. While you use FUD as your main marketing tool instead of excellence, you aren't developing your product properly, and eventually the competition will get far enough ahead that FUD won't work. And when that happens, you are in deep trouble, because you are already far behind. I predict this for Microsoft in 3-4 years time. The chanllenger may, or may not, be Linux. And the crash will take years to happen.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Don't be so certain that SCO is going to die here.
David Boies, who led charge for the White Plains Cravath office team defending IBM in the antitrust action, is now representing SCO.
In the '70s, IBM was facing the real risk of being split at a time when they were unquestionably the dominant player in the computer industry. There was not a dime IBM had it would not have spent in the defense of that action.
Now, IBM is a shadow of its former self, and this issue -- a license fee for Unix -- is not the same mission critical issue as the antitrust litigation.
Uhh... whatever. I tried using their graphical installer its first time around (don't laugh... I was trying out the distro as I never had before -- only knew Debian and Slack up till then. It did not pass muster.) and it sucked big time. I tried it on four different HW configs and it failed each in new and disgusting ways. The error handling was absolutely non-existent. What a total piece of shite.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
In the beginning it was a suit against IBM's alleged breach of contract in copying code from Unix(tm) -whatever this means right now - into Linux. SCO gave IBM 100 days to give them $1 billion or get their AIX licence revoked. At the time it wasn't sure that this had anything to do with Linux.
IBM barely responded.
Then there were 1500 letters of warning sent to corporations running Linux and AIX I assume. At the time it wasn't sure that this had anything to do Linus.
IBM barely responded and the Linux community exploded with some people even calling Darl to come out and have a fist fight. Linus was very calm and welcomed the threat, but commented that the suit didn't have much chance of getting anywhere. Microsft, very publicly, bought a licence from SCO, giving rise to millions of suspicions that MS was behind the whole charade.
Then Darl McBride retracted his statement about sueing Linus. He then started the first of his (in)famous conference calls, claiming ownership to just about everything that had ever been in touch with anything to do with Unix.
Then Novell chimed up saying that no patents or copyrights had been sold to SCO.
SCO claimed that they had been sold, "according to some of our experts"
Then SCO started harping about hundreds of thousands of lines of code.
Speculation was rife in the OSS community as to what code exactly was being referred to.
Then there was the code preview and the (in)famous SCO NDA, which in effect didn't allow you to comment on the specifics of the code. Most analysts commented that they didn't see how SCO had a case, with only Microsoft friendly Gartner warning clients about Linux.
Most analysts refused the NDA, with only some analysts taking the bait. After reviewing the code, the situation was by no means any clearer than before, because while the analysts had indeed seen similar code, there was no relaible means of checking when the code had been entered into the SCO Unixware codebase, thereby starting suspicions by thousands of OSS members that SCO had in fact copied Linux code into the SCO code base.
The 100 day period rolls around, with only Darl "the mouth" McBride making threatening sounds about "mapping it all out for IBM and AIX licencees". Darl had failed to notice that IBM covers each and every one of it's cutomers against lawsuits against AIX.
The next week, IBM, in a first real response to the whole theater piece, basically stated that "AIX is ours, it's licence is irrevocable, and that this matter will be sttled in court". McBride, apparently very unsettled by the fact that IBM was not taking him personally seriously, resorted to an attempted injunction and that all time favourite fallback method used by Americans of all colors and creeds when really in deep shit: "Linux is giving the commies, arabs and terrorists high tech because it's free for all"- Appealing to Americans patriotic fervour when one has no other way out, thereby following the likes of other famous personages such as Oliver North, Admiral Pointdexter and Richard Nixon.
The saga continues...
This is better than TV.